It's probably got something to do with the recent ORV on road shoulder legislation. Lots of municipalities are just outright deciding not to allow it, which they have the legal right to do. The study might be trying to determine if those decisions are reasonable.

It's probably got something to do with the recent ORV on road shoulder legislation. Lots of municipalities are just outright deciding not to allow it, which they have the legal right to do. The study might be trying to determine if those decisions are reasonable.

not even close

here are the counties that are open and pretty much every county that has taken it to vote it has passed

Passed Ogemaw 9-11-08

Delta 9-24-08

Roscommon 10-08-08

Mackinac 10-09-08

Chippewa 10-13-08

Missaukee 10-14-08

Arenac 10-14-08

Clare 10-15-08

Schoolcraft 10-21-08

Ontonagon 10-21-08

Houghton 10-21-08

Gogebic 10-22-08

Dickinson 10-27-08

Alpena 10-28-08

Osceola 11-04-08

Luce 11-13-08

Marquette 11-18-08

Iron 12-23-08

Iosco 1-07-09

Presque Isle 1-09-09

Kalkaska 2-10-09

Gladwin 3-10-09

Charlevoix 4-09-09

Oscoda 4-14-09

Crawford 4-15-09 Under Revision

Wexford 4-15-09

Montmorency 4-28-09

Lake 5-13-09

Benzie 5-13-09 affective 7-1-09

Baraga 5-14-09

# 31 Otsego 5-26-09

It is the users responsibility to know date of implementation, roads OPEN to ORV travel, ORV speed limits. GET LOCAL INFORMATION BEFORE RIDING!

Final vote Keweenaw tba

Cheboygan hearing 6-09-09

MSU was and has been prior, hired by the MI DNR ORV program to conduct this study. These studies are to determine trends and also numbers of users in general. They take things like user days, $ amounts spent during those days, what types of ORV's are being used and the like. I am sure these are the questions found on your mailed survey. Problem with this study in the past was that the fullsize user has been left out of the final tally and the survey's tend to go out randomly when they should be available where ORV stickers are purchased and the users can have an adequate voice and reflect the system as it is. Please make sure when you complete your's that you make it clear you recreate in a fullsize ORV.

The money used to pay MSU for this study comes from the sales of the ORV sticker, so if you do get one and have ever purchased an ORV sticker you are funding this. So be sure to fill it out and mail it back, we might as well get something out of our ORV fund.

This is probably part of Dr. Charles Nelson's study of "the Economic Impact of OHV Recreation in Michigan". He's updating it for the DNR. I really, really, hope you're one of the "big spenders" of the 4x4 community. We need them to realize how many of us there are and how much we spend when we go out.

Thanks for filling it out and returning it!
Now we know we have at least ONE respondent, lol.

This is probably part of Dr. Charles Nelson's study of "the Economic Impact of OHV Recreation in Michigan". He's updating it for the DNR. I really, really, hope you're one of the "big spenders" of the 4x4 community. We need them to realize how many of us there are and how much we spend when we go out.

Thanks for filling it out and returning it!
Now we know we have at least ONE respondent, lol.

Oh, so this study wasn't what I was thinking. I'll still go with the discussion though.

Just because a county votes to approve it, a township doesn't have to. That's what I was referring to. I believe the law reads that if greater than 30% of the road miles within the county will be closed to ORVs, then ORVs aren't allowed on ANY roads within the county. When you have a few townships that are quite developed (i.e. have many more miles of roads than the others) and vote to prohibit ORVs on the shoulder, it can really screw things up.

This just happened in the township I work for. Without much consideration, our Board voted to prohibit them altogether, which I thought was inappropriate. I wanted to designate at least a few north/south and east/west routes across the township so that people coming from adjacent townships could pass through.

This is probably part of Dr. Charles Nelson's study of "the Economic Impact of OHV Recreation in Michigan". He's updating it for the DNR. I really, really, hope you're one of the "big spenders" of the 4x4 community. We need them to realize how many of us there are and how much we spend when we go out.

Thanks for filling it out and returning it!
Now we know we have at least ONE respondent, lol.

The return envelope was addressed to Dr. Chuck Nelson

since it was for 2008 mostly, i had a 2W, 4W, and SUV that i had data for.

I spend more time than money, but a decent chunk of change.

I was thinking i was possibly chosen from ORV license info, since they need your ID to purchase, and last year i bought 3 ORV stickers, this year only 2.

I dont take too much stock in this survey because it only reflects less than 1&#37; of the total users of ORVers in the State of Michigan. 1200-1500 randomly selected ORV users is like seeking a needle in a haystack IMO..

Any survey that only takes 1% of the total user base cannot be deemed accurate by any stretch of the imagination..

But yet, our DNR can find ways to waste our current ORV sticker dollars with inaccurate date based on this survey.

A much better way to survey folks is when they purchase their ORV stickers..Have a survey that MUST be filled out BEFORE they'll give you your ORV sticker..Data will be FAR more accurate and would cost ALOT less than what Charles Nelson charges us for his inaccurate survey..

since it was for 2008 mostly, i had a 2W, 4W, and SUV that i had data for.

I spend more time than money, but a decent chunk of change.

I was thinking i was possibly chosen from ORV license info, since they need your ID to purchase, and last year i bought 3 ORV stickers, this year only 2.

I wish it were from the info gathered when an ORV was purchased. Unfortunately they do not actually track any info and id is rarely requried to purchase an ORV. The pre-printed ORV stickers found at such places as motorcycle shops and even the booth at the dunes do not make it a prcatice to look at id's.

We have been asking the ORV advisory board and Steve Kusiak ORV Program Manager, to come up with a system for gathering such information without success. Obviously it hasn't happened yet as Trailfanatic is correct in saying they got Fsumotorheads info from his vehicle registration. I have had numerous discussions with Dr. Nelson about this survey and it is getting better as to the questions asked and those questions reaching a broader scope of users.

We tried to get some sort of "user ID" worked into the purchase transaction when we were putting together recommendations for the long-range financial plan for the ORV program. Those that opposed it seemed to think it was either a burden on the already under-compensated vendor, or would somehow affect the ability of groups to purchase large quantities of permits prior to big organized events. I personally think both arguments are pretty thin - the vendor only needs to make one more keystroke at the point of sale, and if you are purchasing large blocks of permits I am assuming you already know what user group you will be distributing them to.

The sample size chosen by Dr Nelson is a statistical sample - you don't need to sample 100% of the population to get accurate results as long as the sample is carefully chosen. The end result is not 100% accurate, that's why all scientific polls and surveys note that there is a potential error of +/- XX%. The cost of sending 180,000 surveys to every ORV permit purchaser would be a deal breaker, and would potentially exclude folks who do no purchase ORV permits for their ORV - either becuase they operate on provate land, out of state, or illegally.

PAUL,
Im not suggesting that we need to sample 100&#37; of the ORV riding population to get accurate results in Nelsons survey, however, there is no way in hell that anybody will convince me that a 1% survey of ANY overall picture is going to be anywhere near ''accurate''.. And what accurate method does one use to ''carefully pick/choose'' WHO/WHAT ORV user to send these surveys to??.

I for one know that the dirt bike leaders do NOT want a statistical number taken from every ORV user groups. If this were done and the REAL numbers were indicated, this could really cause some havic within their sport.

I for one know that the dirt bike leaders do NOT want a statistical number taken from every ORV user groups. If this were done and the REAL numbers were indicated, this could really cause some havic within their sport.

Proof, please.

Sounds like the motorcyclists will have to work hard to keep a few persistent people from widening all of the ORV trails up to 60".

PROOF PLEASE,
are you kidding me? All the proof you need is on most any weekend on most of Michigans designated trails system.

And though I would like to see a some trail widths move out to 60 inches, I certainly dont want all of them like this..The cyclist do deserve some 24 inch trails too.

I replied in the other thread for incorrectly assuming you wanted all ORV trails equal to 60".

I will also apologize in this thread. I misunderstood what you wrote and went on a tirade. Sorry Bill!

I will reiterate that I think a better solution is to take the ATV trails that were recently mandated as "motorcycle only" and cut 24" trail around the same area as the existing ATV trail - using Tin Cup as a good example.

Maybe that way, we all can enjoy the sport on whatever ORV we choose to own (and try for some 60" trails to be added - Kalkaska has some good spots for this).

Bill, does this idea have any merit? Instead of excluding a user group, we could add additional facilities at existing loops.

ALL on the same exact trail running parallel to each other.. Something like this would probably not go over real good with the MDNR because of the costs involved and the land use/labor it would take to make this happen.

ALL on the same exact trail running parallel to each other.. Something like this would probably not go over real good with the MDNR because of the costs involved and the land use/labor it would take to make this happen.

But I'll admit, I sure do like the idea!

I know that there are plenty of people that would volunteer time and resources to complete such a project.

I wonder if we could make a pitch to the DNR to make an example at a ORV trail to make it true multi-use.

Do you (or anybody reading this) have an idea of the right people to contact to pitch an idea like this? I am thinking we find a trail that has been "converted" from ORV to MC-only, have the ORV trail go back to ATV, and route an MC-only trail around it. If the motorcyclists want MC-only trails, we should be (and many are) willing to map out, create and maintain that trail alongside the existing ATV trail, with the understanding that ATVees need to stay off the singletrack (the main reason the CCC went after MC-only trails).

I can see this also whizzing off some ORV'ers, because motorcycles would have access to all three (24", 50" and Route), AVTees would have access to only two and full-size guys, only one.

I'm going to try to draft a proposal and see if I can grab the ear of anyone at the CCC. I swear - if we could get all ORV'ers organized together as a group, we could have as big a voice as the sportsmen and snowmobilers.

as an avid atv rider, i can't say i really like routes all that much, unless they have a challenge to them. for instance, Drummond Island's new ORV route was a perfect ride. As for "trail" riding, i like tight trails, a true 50" trail, to me, is fun.
I personally have no problem sharing trail/routes with anyone. I think a tight challenging multi-use trail is very much needed here in the Lower peninsula.

i am also all for "ALL" ORV user groups getting together and fight for a cause as oppose to fighting with each other.

Fights between user groups will continue until the DNR start to realize that there are more than just ''cyclist'' who pay to use Michigans designated trail system..NO user group should ever have such a ''strong hold'' on the DNR like the Cyclist do here in Michigan..In many cases, the DNR cause such user fights. Lets give you an example of this and take a look at the LUOD for a ''cycle only'' trail below. [ Tomahawk trail is a good example too ]

In my opinion, the LUOD [ land use order of director ] for a ''cycle only'' trail violates the States Statue on the defination of what a Designated Trail and ORV Trail is defined as..How she [ DNR Director ] got away with this is something that is still being investigated.

As far as user groups getting together to fight for the same cause?

How are we, the ATVers and Full size truck club leaders/users, suppose to sit at the round table with the same cyclists that are allowed ''exclusive priveledges'' from the DNR and feel good about it?

Fighting for the SAME CAUSE is a great idea, but the cyclist leaders appear only interested in fighting for the SAME CAUSE if it fits into THEIR personal agenda's..
The new ORV Route on Drummond Island is a good example of what im talking about.. Leadership from the cyclist group did NOT want this new ORV Route on DI because they thought it would be TOO COSTLY to maintain, however, this is the same cyclist group that has no problem sucking out 260k a year from our ORV sticker funds to do trail maintenance on much of Michigans ORV trail system while doing sub-standard work on alot of it. Working together for the same cause is a great idea, but the reality of it happening, wont happen until the DNR starts to recognize that there is more than just ONE ORV user group here in Michigan.

And what astounds me too is that although ATVers make-up for the largest ORV user base here in Michigan,except for myself and a ''few other ATVers'' this user base has absolutley no one ''on watch'' who gives a damn about some of the negative effects put on their sport, caused by some of the decisions made from the DNR..Seems like whatever the DNR say or do, the ATV folks dont care or are just ''sucked in'' by the DNRs decisions..There's ALOT more Political aspects to ATVing in Michigan than ''who's bringing the hot dogs and pop to the next ride''........Political leadership within the ATV clubs here in Michigan is failing miserable and if continued on, will further lead to the dimise of their sport.

SCOOTER,
As I mentioned earlier, I love your idea of parallel trails being side/side here in Michigan BUT, I just dont see that happening..Even today, volunteers to do trail maintenance are VERY hard to find.This trail maintenance thing is ALL F-ed up in Michigan..For starters, the ORV user already pays to use the trails in Michigan and they already pay to have them groomed when they buy their ORV stickers..What makes the DNR think that now these same folks who already payed to use a GROOMED TRAIL, now wants to go out and spend more of their own money/time to gas up their vehicle, head up north and ''volunteer'' their time to groom a trail that they already payed someone to groom for them when they bought their ORV sticker??

Im not suggesting that we QUIT doing it this way, however, I certainly am suggesting that the DNR look at OUTSOURCING some of this work to some folks outside of ''VOLUNTEERS'' from our own ORV user base..Since the cycle club rake in about 260k a year from this trail maintenance fund, they would CERTAINLY be OPPOSED to a move of this sort..But this is the time where the voices of the OTHER ORV user groups should be heard loud and clear. Since most no one within the ATV clubs would give a damn one way or the other, the voices of the truck club leaders would have to be heard on this one.